US judge rules that you can't copyright pi

The mathematical constant pi continues to infinity, but an extraordinary lawsuit that centred on this most beloved string of digits has come to an end. Appropriately, the decision was made on Pi Day.

On 14 March, which commemorates the constant that begins 3.14, US district court judge Michael H. Simon dismissed a claim of copyright infringement brought by one mathematical musician against another, who had also created music based on the digits of pi.

"Pi is a non-copyrightable fact, and the transcription of pi to music is a non-copyrightable idea," Simon wrote in his legal opinion dismissing the case. "The resulting pattern of notes is an expression that merges with the non-copyrightable idea of putting pi to music."

The bizarre tale began about a year ago, when Michael Blake of Portland, Oregon, released a song and YouTube video featuring an original musical composition, "What pi sounds like", translating the constant's first few dozen digits into musical notes. On Pi Day 2011, the number of page views skyrocketed as the video went viral, New Scientist was among those who covered his creation. Blake found himself a nerd celebrity, fielding emails and phone calls from multiple media outlets.

Pi symphony

"It was a great morning," Blake recalls. "It was the first time where something I'd done creatively received attention like that."

The celebratory ride quickly derailed, though. That afternoon, jazz musician Lars Erickson from Omaha, Nebraska, cried foul. Erickson thought Blake's work sounded suspiciously similar to his own 1992 piece "Pi Symphony," also based on the digits of pi, which is registered with the US copyright office. He contacted YouTube, and Blake's video vanished.

"It was like being stabbed," says Blake. "This great thing I'd created, and then watched explode, was gone. I felt robbed."

Erickson and Blake, who have never met nor even talked on the phone, had both assigned each of the digits 0 to 9 to a musical note and then treated the digits of pi as a musical score. Erickson, who calls the two melodies "identical", filed a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement.

Judge Simon, however, disagreed. According to his ruling, the two pieces differed enough in areas like tempo, musical phrasing, and harmonies to be considered distinct. Plus, US law doesn't protect every aspect of the piece, like underlying facts and ideas.

Copyrighted digits?

What's more, Simon, who intentionally released his decision on Pi Day, noted that Erickson's copyright registration only protects musical flourishes – and his are markedly different from Blake's.

Erickson isn't happy though. "If people look at my explanation of the Pi Symphony video and then look at Mr Blake's video, they can draw their own conclusions," Erickson says. "I'm not sure that the judge got it right."

Blake says he wasn't surprised by the ruling, but he still felt relief. For the last year, he's been consulting multiple lawyers – working pro bono – in an effort to defend himself. "It was great news to get on Pi Day," he says.

Stephen Joncus from the law firm of Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, also based in Portland, Oregon, doesn't think there are any broader implications of the case in terms of copyright. "I think it's pretty standard for cases like this to be dismissed," he says. "You can't get a copyright for an idea, and the idea here was making music based on the sequences of digits in the number pi."

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.